• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Healthcare question for Christians

WWJD?


  • Total voters
    34
For the second time the problem was taxation without representation. At least present it in it's full context. Our side felt it was not represented in the British Parliament regardless of the fact that they had to pay the same taxes as Englishmen living in England. That is not the same as saying that we had a war over taxes. The grievance wasn't over the taxes. But over the lack of rights, benefits etc they felt was in some way guaranteed to them by paying taxes.

:doh------>

"Joseph Hawley, of Massachusetts, submitted to the delegation from his colony, in the First Continental Congress, some wise "hints," which started with : "We must fight, if we cannot otherwise rid ourselves of British taxation." - Revolutionary War

As far as you feeling like you are not being represented, I believe you should take it up with your congressman. I feel just fine with mine.

I can't help it if you like the cool aid party line.

Hyperbole indeed.

I agree you comments are.
 
:doh------>

"Joseph Hawley, of Massachusetts, submitted to the delegation from his colony, in the First Continental Congress, some wise "hints," which started with : "We must fight, if we cannot otherwise rid ourselves of British taxation." - Revolutionary War

I can't believe I'm arguing 7th grade history with you :

No Taxation without Representation

On the surface, the Americans held to the view of actual representation, meaning that in order to be taxed by Parliament, the Americans rightly should have actual legislators seated and voting in London. James Otis argued for this form of representation in the Stamp Act Congress in 1765, but few other delegates supported him.

The British, on the other hand, supported the concept of virtual representation, which was based on the belief that a Member of Parliament virtually represented every person in the empire and there was no need for a specific representative from Virginia or Massachusetts, for example. In fact, virtual representation was not unknown in America. Legislators in the Virginia House of Burgesses could live in one district while representing another one. It could also be argued that property-owning adult males in much of colonial America virtually represented non-voting women, slaves and men without property.

Parliamentary taxation of colonies, international trade, and American Revolution, 1763-1775

The American Revolution was precipitated, in part, by a series of laws passed between 1763 and 1775 that regulating trade and taxes. This legislation caused tensions between colonists and imperial officials, who made it clear that the British Parliament would not address American complaints that the new laws were onerous. British unwillingness to respond to American demands for change allowed colonists to argue that they were part of an increasingly corrupt and autocratic empire in which their traditional liberties were threatened. This position eventually served as the basis for the colonial Declaration of Independence.


I can't help it if you like the cool aid party line.



I agree you comments are.

Are you being held at gun point for your taxes? Does the government show up at your door and search your house for money while your children are tied up in the living room and your wife cries? Hyperbole indeed.
 
There is no doubt in my mind that if Jesus were alive today that he would be strongly advocating for Universal health care. I think those that are attempting to argue otherwise aren't being honest with themselves....or are too ashamed to admit that they have turned their back on the life example of Jesus Christ.
 
There is no doubt in my mind that if Jesus were alive today that he would be strongly advocating for Universal health care. I think those that are attempting to argue otherwise aren't being honest with themselves....or are too ashamed to admit that they have turned their back on the life example of Jesus Christ.

Then you entirely misunderstand why Jesus walked the Earth.

His life and the way he lived it was the example by which we are to follow.

He never, ever, not once, ever, got involved in politics, and in fact on occasion specifically eschewed it. He was very clear that he was not there to reform the government or overthrow the Romans. He was there to teach us how to lead our daily lives.

If you think that Jesus would take up any political cause of any kind, then you're having problems being "honest" with yourself. That is, if you had any steeping the teachings of Christ to begin with.
 
Then you entirely misunderstand why Jesus walked the Earth.

His life and the way he lived it was the example by which we are to follow.

He never, ever, not once, ever, got involved in politics, and in fact on occasion specifically eschewed it. He was very clear that he was not there to reform the government or overthrow the Romans. He was there to teach us how to lead our daily lives.

If you think that Jesus would take up any political cause of any kind, then you're having problems being "honest" with yourself. That is, if you had any steeping the teachings of Christ to begin with.

Its not about taking up a political cause...its about doing the right thing involving your fellow mankind. I've studied the life of Jesus Christ for over 40 years. I know for a fact that he would never turn his back and support a system that rations health care based on an ability to pay.
If you haven't learned that from the teachings of Christ...then you obviously haven't read much on the life of the man.
 
Its not about taking up a political cause...its about doing the right thing involving your fellow mankind. I've studied the life of Jesus Christ for over 40 years. I know for a fact that he would never turn his back and support a system that rations health care based on an ability to pay.
If you haven't learned that from the teachings of Christ...then you obviously haven't read much on the life of the man.

UHC is a political cause, saying it's not is completely and utterly disingenuous if not outright dishonest, and no, he wouldn't turn his back -- but he'd expect us all to do our part in and of ourselves, not as part of something the government was doing.
 
I can't believe I'm arguing 7th grade history with you :

I can't believe you are trying to deny it is part of the reason. Yes this is nothing but hyperbole on your part.

Are you being held at gun point for your taxes?

What happens if I chose not to pay them?

Does the government show up at your door and search your house for money while your children are tied up in the living room and your wife cries? Hyperbole indeed.

Fallacy. That is ridicules and has nothing to do with what I said.
 
He gave 5,000 people free food. He didn't sell it to them. Obviously not a capitalist. Or at least not a very good one.

Performing personal charity has nothing to do with socialism OR capitalism. No one here would argue for a second that the Jesus character would have any problem with charity at all. And I seriously doubt anyone here has any issue with charity at all. I'm sure he would give and give and give. And he'd welcome others to choose to do the same. What he would NOT do is demand or force others to give and give of themselves to everyone else. What he would not do is advocate stealing from one to give to others.
 
There is no doubt in my mind that if Jesus were alive today that he would be strongly advocating for Universal health care. I think those that are attempting to argue otherwise aren't being honest with themselves....or are too ashamed to admit that they have turned their back on the life example of Jesus Christ.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Jesus were alive today that he would not be for or against Universal health care. I think those that are attempting to argue otherwise aren't being honest with themselves....or are too ashamed to admit that they have turned their back on the life example of Jesus Christ.

Fixed for great justice!
 
Its not about taking up a political cause...its about doing the right thing involving your fellow mankind.

No it is not. The system can e fixed without turning over control to the government. It is at this point purely political.

I've studied the life of Jesus Christ for over 40 years. I know for a fact that he would never turn his back and support a system that rations health care based on an ability to pay.

So how do you explain his turning his back on slavery? Or could it be that since it was legal in Rome, it would have been a political matter?

40 years? I find it hard to believe.

If you haven't learned that from the teachings of Christ...then you obviously haven't read much on the life of the man.

You should probably listen to your own advise in this case.
 
There is no doubt in my mind that if Jesus were alive today that he would be strongly advocating for Universal health care. I think those that are attempting to argue otherwise aren't being honest with themselves....or are too ashamed to admit that they have turned their back on the life example of Jesus Christ.

Again I say, he'd probably ask "Where are the poor?"
 
Long thread so not sure if anybody has mentioned this yet but Jesus said he is the bread of life and he is the ressurection, Thus if Jesus where here, There would be no need for any kind of government health care. You would not get sick and you would not die
 
Jesus wouldn't support the current healthcare plan because he has a brain.
 
There is no doubt in my mind that if Jesus were alive today that he would be strongly advocating for Universal health care. I think those that are attempting to argue otherwise aren't being honest with themselves....or are too ashamed to admit that they have turned their back on the life example of Jesus Christ.


There is no doubt in my mind that if Jesus walked the earth today, he would be far more concerned about the state of our souls and our morals than the state of our healthcare system.
 
There is no doubt in my mind that if Jesus walked the earth today, he would be far more concerned about the state of our souls and our morals than the state of our healthcare system.

Why did the Jews get the Romans to kill Jesus again? A political move was it not?
 
Why did the Jews get the Romans to kill Jesus again? A political move was it not?

To some degree it was motivated by politics, yes. The existing King was needlessly concerned with being replaced by Jesus, and the Sanhedrin/Pharisees were concerned with losing their religiously-based authority over the people.

Jesus himself was not much concerned with politics, and resisted attempts to politicize his presence and message. He said, "If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight", but that was not the purpose of his incarnation.

G.
 
Last edited:
Why did the Jews get the Romans to kill Jesus again? A political move was it not?

I would say it was political yes, but this has nothing to do with Jesus getting involved in politics. He did not and so your question is irrelevant.

Other people tried to politicize the positions of Jesus, not Jesus.
 
Not if it paid for abortions, he wouldn't.

Actually, this raises an interesting point which could well be used to illuminate the one at hand.

Would Jesus support anti-abortion laws? (Sub-question -- does SouthernDemocrat think a Christian is obligated to vote for them?)

The answer would be the same -- he'd have no interest in the question. It's an Earthly law; he's interested only in God's law. Whatever the human law, he'd expect that you act accordingly to God's will, so human law doesn't matter.
 
I would say it was political yes, but this has nothing to do with Jesus getting involved in politics. He did not and so your question is irrelevant.

Other people tried to politicize the positions of Jesus, not Jesus.

Thank you. An interesting point.

However, while its true Jesus did not want to be King, or create a kingdom on earth. However, it would be wrong to think that Jesus had little to do with politics. His message was to applied to all of life, which has considerable political ramifications. Moreover he example of his life is itself a call to involvement in the social arena. For charity? Certainly. For more than just charity? Certainly, because Jesus was concerned with righetousness, which in Hebrew culture was not just about one's own relationship with God, but between people - all people. His pronounced blessing on those who hunger and thirst to see righteousness dominate the affairs of mankind is a perfect example of his concern for righteousness, not just in the here after but today and now.

Consider Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan, it not only addresses culture race and creed but indicts religious leaders who are unwilling to anything about these problems - thus the answer to the OP is made clear.
 
Thank you. An interesting point.

However, while its true Jesus did not want to be King, or create a kingdom on earth. However, it would be wrong to think that Jesus had little to do with politics. His message was to applied to all of life, which has considerable political ramifications. Moreover he example of his life is itself a call to involvement in the social arena. For charity? Certainly. For more than just charity? Certainly, because Jesus was concerned with righetousness, which in Hebrew culture was not just about one's own relationship with God, but between people - all people. His pronounced blessing on those who hunger and thirst to see righteousness dominate the affairs of mankind is a perfect example of his concern for righteousness, not just in the here after but today and now.

Consider Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan, it not only addresses culture race and creed but indicts religious leaders who are unwilling to anything about these problems - thus the answer to the OP is made clear.

There is nothing political about the Good Samaritan story.

You know, it's interesting . . . liberals throw a hissy-fit whenever they think conservatives are claiming God for their side. But they're clamped on pretty tight here.
 
Right after he talked about universal health care.

He talked a lot more about caring for the sick and led more of example doing such than he even came close to talking about abortion.
You might want to read up on his life sometime.
 
Back
Top Bottom